Wikidata:Property proposal/homograph lexeme
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
homograph lexeme[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
| Description | lexeme in the same or a different language with the same spelling as this one |
|---|---|
| Represents | homograph (Q223981) |
| Data type | Lexeme |
| Domain | lexeme |
| Example | fire@English noun → fire@English verb (see: wikt:en:fire) |
Motivation
Needed since this feature won't be supported by the software (see T193607).--Micru (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment do we need this on lexemes if we have it on forms? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest I have no clue. We could begin with "homograph form" and see later on if this one is required.--Micru (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Micru what is supposed to be an "homograph lexeme" ? Per se, a lexeme is not written, how could it have an homograph? If any property is needed, it is for form (Wikidata:Property proposal/homograph form) not for lexeme. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON: We give lexemes a label, so in a way they are written. It could be useful to identify lexemes with the same label. If "homograph lexeme" is not a good name for this property, then a possible alternative name is "lexeme with the same label" (if it is useful at all, we'll see).--Micru (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Micru sometimes (and maybe more and more often?) we give lexemes several lemmata as label (see Lexeme:L1). So If you really want to put at the lexemes level, then it should be something like "lexeme with one form in common" ; "homograph form" has almost the same role (but at the form level) and would be easier and clearer to use, don't you agree? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- VIGNERON, yes I agree, it is easier and clearer to use homographs in forms.--Micru (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Support if in same language.
--- Jura 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)- updated it.
--- Jura 07:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- updated it.
Done
--- Jura 05:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: The change that you did to the proposal was not supported from anyone else other than yourself, and you created the property with your change without pinging anyone first. Therefore I consider that the change is not valid and I will leave it as it was originally.--Micru (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you had ample time to comment. Contrary your way of doing things, people had time to comment on the improvement.
--- Jura 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)- You didn't ping anyone, and you created a property without enough support for those changes, only your own, which ammounts to create your own property. That goes against the guidelines: "Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists and must not create properties they have suggested themselves."--Micru (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you forgot that you proposed this property.
--- Jura 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)- Exactly, I proposed the property with a certain wording. When you changed it, it became a different property and you didn't offer any justification for the change.--Micru (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you lost interest in the discussion, I can't really help you. The property was created in line with its current wording.
--- Jura 17:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)- The property was created with an unjustified and unnotified change, and with lack of support (only yours, the one who created it).--Micru (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was slightly improved. If you disagree with the creation, feel free to list it for deletion. However, it's inappropriate to change the description to one that hasn't been agreed on.
--- Jura 17:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)- My description was ok for the people who originally participated in the discussion. I find inappropriate that you change the description to one that only you find appropriate.--Micru (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was slightly improved. If you disagree with the creation, feel free to list it for deletion. However, it's inappropriate to change the description to one that hasn't been agreed on.
- The property was created with an unjustified and unnotified change, and with lack of support (only yours, the one who created it).--Micru (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you lost interest in the discussion, I can't really help you. The property was created in line with its current wording.
- Exactly, I proposed the property with a certain wording. When you changed it, it became a different property and you didn't offer any justification for the change.--Micru (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you forgot that you proposed this property.
- You didn't ping anyone, and you created a property without enough support for those changes, only your own, which ammounts to create your own property. That goes against the guidelines: "Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists and must not create properties they have suggested themselves."--Micru (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you had ample time to comment. Contrary your way of doing things, people had time to comment on the improvement.
- Pro forma: Support your version, if you really think it's needed that much.
--- Jura 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)- Personally I would prefer this to be implemented in the software itself (see T195411), but since you seem to want this property now, I'm ok allowing it as I don't see any harm. Btw, why did you want to link only one language? Wiktionaries link all languages with the same spelling. What is the advantadge of linking just one language?--Micru (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: The change that you did to the proposal was not supported from anyone else other than yourself, and you created the property with your change without pinging anyone first. Therefore I consider that the change is not valid and I will leave it as it was originally.--Micru (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)